Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:47:33 -0400, "G. S. Marzot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>
> G> I think I still vote 4) ... one of the very reasons being that some
> G> people don't know the errata exists...and I don't think anyone we
> G> care about will think we are idiots
see below for answer...
but oh my...I did not do what I thought I did...applying the errata appears to
need to be done by hand...I thought I had downloaded already patched files...
Now I suppose that we should archive the RFC and errata separately...and let the
interested reader consult the rfc##
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:47:33 -0400, "G. S. Marzot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
G> I think I still vote 4) ... one of the very reasons being that some
G> people don't know the errata exists...and I don't think anyone we
G> care about will think we are idiots for quoting/publishing the th
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:51:28 -0400, "G. S. Marzot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
G> I vote just the RFCs (protocol/smi) too...the extracted MIBs are
G> elsewhere...and not sure how much added value there is in repeating
G> them within the RFCs.
I'd actually think the MIB RFCs would be he
On 27/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Story wrote:
> > Most people don't even realize the errata exists. So if you go about saying
> > "RFC says 'blah'", and 'blah' was part of the errata, then others whoe
> > only have the original RFC (most people) are going to be con
Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:08:19 -0400 G. wrote:
> GSM> the benefit of shipping the RFCs is mostly convenience as they can be
> GSM> retrieved elsewhere...of course we should strive to have this element of
> GSM> the documentation be as accurate updated as possible...why would any
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:08:19 -0400 G. wrote:
GSM> the benefit of shipping the RFCs is mostly convenience as they can be
GSM> retrieved elsewhere...of course we should strive to have this element of
GSM> the documentation be as accurate updated as possible...why would anyone
GSM> want the original v
Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:46 -0400 G. wrote:
> GSM> also noting that the commit I have would contain the most updated
> versions
> GSM> (i.e., +errata).
>
> How many of the RFCs contained errata?
about 6-7...I didn't count exactly
>
> GSM> I think like anything, we would
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:32:46 -0400 G. wrote:
GSM> also noting that the commit I have would contain the most updated versions
GSM> (i.e., +errata).
How many of the RFCs contained errata?
GSM> I think like anything, we would do our best to keep everything as updated
GSM> as possible...
I think thi
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:19:44 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > Do you think we should include MIB RFCs too?
DS>
DS> Let's start with the protocol RFCs.
DS> We can add other RFCs later if we feel it would be useful.
I agree.
DS> I'd forgotten that we don't already have a docs (or doc) directory.
Me too!
Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:11:14 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> On 26/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> > Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the distro...
> DS>
> DS> The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
>
> Actually, it's just
G. S. Marzot wrote:
> another vote for under net-snmp/doc
>
> since the pluralization seems unneeded
>
> the final proposal is
>
> net-snmp/doc/rfc/...
>
> to help prevent carpal-tunnel-syndrome
>
> -G
also noting that the commit I have would contain the most updated versions
(i.e., +errata).
On 27/07/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
>
> Actually, it's just the RFCs for the protocol/smi, I think. Not any of the MIB
> RFCs.
>
> Do you think we should include MIB RFCs too?
Let's start with the protocol RFCs.
We can
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:11:14 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On 26/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DS> > Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the distro...
DS>
DS> The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
Actually, it's just the RFCs for the protocol/smi, I t
On 26/07/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the distro...
The full RFCs, rather than just the MIB files, you mean?
Yes - that sounds a good idea to me.
And your proposed structure seems fine.
(I've got my own local copies organised
another vote for under net-snmp/doc
since the pluralization seems unneeded
the final proposal is
net-snmp/doc/rfc/...
to help prevent carpal-tunnel-syndrome
-G
--- Begin Message ---
On 7/27/06, G. S. Marzot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the
Thought it might be good idea to add the SNMP rfcs to the distro...in the same
way BIND does with DNS rfcs...here is the proposed dir structure...
under top nevel net-snmp/rfcs?
or net-snmp/doc/rfcs?
thoughts?
rfcs
rfcs/snmpV2
rfcs/snmpV2/rfc1901.txt
rfcs/snmpV2/rfc1902.txt
rfcs/snmpV2/rfc1903.
17 matches
Mail list logo
